How refreshing to watch great tennis without commentators and supposedly clever camera changes. Just one camera and the players speaking for themselves. Thank you.
Courier over trained and burned out....But was a player who raised the conditioning bar..Like Borg, and Lendl before him...A tuff player...Improving his backhand dramatically his first 2 years on tour was huge...and his serve
Glad I had the chance met both hall of frame players . They both trained together out in west in the hot valley desert . They both are down the earth person very friendly . I met them when they are in Indian Wells Open back in theirs prime.
He symbolizes brute power taking over tennis ‘cause he hit hard, was muscular and wore baseball cap. People forget his articulation, that he spoke French and that he was a recording musician.
Chang has the never say die attitude that is common place these days, but at the time ignorant commentators including McEnroe, made fun of that, insinuating that since he's small and doesn't have as much talent as the other guys, that's the only way to win.
1990s? Golden era for US Open and Americans. An American played in the final in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999. All American finals in 1990, 1995, 1996 and 1999. Countless all American quarterfinals and semifinals. Incredible high level tennis. Sadly, this will never happen again for Americans at the US Open.
I wouldn’t say never but it will be awhile. Too busy trying to seen before they are great. When you are great people will see you whether they want to or not.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone run faster on court then Chang. He doesn’t have the length that guys like Djokovic and Monfils have which is the only reason I’d say he isn’t the best court coverer ever.
I was 14 when this match was played and Courier, who was my favorite player was struggling to get some big wins at the time with Sampras and Agassi beginning to dominate. He played a killer match here. I taped this (yes VHS for those who have forgotten) and watched it constantly. Thanks for showing this. I haven’t seen it in years.
So you were born 1981, I was three older than you were back then. Yes, I set the VHS too and this was the first tennis match that I ever taped. I started playing tennis in 1995. Man... 25 years already.. Time has passed so quickly.
Jim Courir's prime (91-93, reaching 7 Grand Slam finals, winning 4) was already over, but he had a pretty good year 1995. After he beat Chang, he lost in the Semis against Pete Sampras in 4 close sets. I always rooted for him, only when he met Agassi, i rooted for Agassi. His forehand was a brutal force. To this day i dont know what happend after 1993, maybe he lost a bit motivation after winning a few Slams and beeing Nr1. 1996-2000 he pretty much didnt win anything on the tour. A little bit like Mats Wilander after 1988, where he won 3 Slams, was Nr 1 and after that he didnt do anything noticeable in the rest of his career, which he finnished 1996.
Chris_Digi-Wunderland while commentating several years ago I heard him mention that during the latter part of his career he had a dead arm. Maybe from his funky forehand technique.
This is what you call tennis. 80’s and 90’s best era ever not even close. Todays tennis is a joke. Giant artificial rackets light rackets. Artificial strings. Todays equipment provides the top spin the power and the control for the player. The game has no charisma anymore. Baseline only. Artificial equipment. Robotic.
nowadays, what happened to US tennis? there is nobody champion anymore...someone can explain to me? in france we have lots of players, but they are all craps and very weak into their minds and physically..
What a difference the racquet and string technology has made in the game. These guys really did have to use strategy and guile to win points. I was playing the satellite and challenger tours at this time (1995) using a Head Pro Tour 280 and a Kevlar/synthetic gut blend. It was much harder to finish points back in those days. I say kill the technology in the pro ranks and let’s get back to this kind of tennis.
Silly to claim players today don’t use guile and strategy. Players today can hit harder and not miss, but obviously they have to strategize, because their opponents also hit harder and don’t miss.
Michael chang played like Nadal with no power in his shots. He had the speed, the deep slice, the spin, he just lacked the muscle to win multiple slams, but him and Nadal definitely are the only 2 players I’ve ever seen to play every single point like it’s their last.
To me chang was more than a one-hit wonder winning the french open in 89 .he reached the final at the fo in 95 (lost to muster) the final at the ao in 96 (lost to becker) the uso in 96 (lost to sampras) so he definitely had a good period there chang actually beat bruguera in the semis at fo 95 who had won in 93 and 94 but muster played the tournament of his life but chang met sampras at the uso and everyone knows that sampras was almost impossible to beat in that tournament but from 95 to 97 chang had a very good period he was close to win again against bruguera at the french in 97 but was a bit unlucky in that game bruguera Later lost to kuerten in the final
Jim Courier had the strangest career of any all-time great to me. He was such a dominant force at the majors for 2 years, and was even a year-end #1. His peak was really short-lived, and his decline from the top came relatively quickly. Part of it was just because Sampras became Sampras. But even then, after ‘95 he just completely fell off. I honestly think he was a true overachiever. Was just a super hard worker, and great competitor, and totally maxed out his potential. A real all-time great in his prime.
Jim Courier was an over-achiever. He also adjusted his hat way too much. He was stiff, had a predictable game, was very strong, and could move decently--(on a good day!).
These guys are 24 and 25 yrs old here. Just babies, but back then, you're career was winding down. Jim's slam winning days were over, and Chang only got the one French at 17. I remember when Becker and Edberg dominated the scene, but they too, stopped winning slams once they entered their mid 20's. Sampras and Agassi started stretching the longevity, then Roger, Nadal and Novak took longevity to an astronomical level.
Chang was quite fast but he doesnt seem to be so good at anticipating his rival's atack. Nadal, Nole and Murray are many steps forward in this departement.
I loved Chang. His willpower, his footwork, his professionalism, his personality. The only thing I still don't understand how he could not stop hitting short balls. Opponents just whacked these balls into the corners.
courier would’ve won more slams if he switched to a bigger frame.. he had an extreme grip for that time and would’ve benefit from like a 100 sq inch ... he would’ve been awesome in the modern game.. Chang on the other hand need a smaller frame 95 or something.. he was a placement player... and he should’ve used a wide body.. yep they were around at that time (martina used one)... chang would’ve had more depths to his backhand.
@@CSV1973 I think injury also affected Courier's career. I can't remember exactly what it was, but I think he got some kind of hand injury that seriously affected his game.
@@zeddeka Yeah Jim described it as a dead arm. His forehand did indeed seem to fall off notably from his peak in later years. He could still crack a few like he used to in any given match. Not like his prime though, when it seemed he could attack and crush the ball off the forehand anytime he had even a small opening to attack.
Courier was a bad match up for Chang just as Agassi was a good one. Courier committed late on his strokes so could wrong foot Chang. Agassi with his taking the ball early gave Chang a good target to run down.
@@CSV1973 Actually he was very good volleyer for a baseliner. You could see it in doubles and singles. The master, Mcenroe even said he was very fundamentally sound. Now he was no Mac or Edberg. He was however, far superior to Agassi, better then Courier (chang actually could do reflex and touch volleys well), and at least as good as Lendl. Naturally, compared to a true serve and volleyer, he wasn't great.
@@EndoftheTownProductions Yes. Courier didn't really have a "weak" backhand, it just wasn't a weapon. It held up very well in long rallies in his prime.
This tennis is more evolved than today's. They take the ball super early, after 2-3 shots they both go for the winner (no long rallies), they are often at the net. It looks like Chang invented the sabr. Brilliant
Chang was involved in a lot of brillant matches vs. the hard hitters like Courir or Agassi. In his prime, he was pretty much a "wall", that made for good matches.
Chris_Digi-Wunderland chang was like Nadal before Nadal but he didn’t have the power behind his shots. He was all spin and keeping the ball in play to make his opponents screw up. He did get some kick in his game a little in 96 but he couldn’t beat Sampras.
I lived in Tampa in the '90's and hit with some of JC's Dade City friends and former junior opponents. The impression I got from them was that he just wasn't mentally suited for the tour grind, that he was too curious about the world and a deep thinker. He just couldn't keep up the "tunnel vision" required, especially with Sampras hitting his stride. He would have needed to develop a more diverse game to keep up with Pete.
Which I why I STILL believe in developing an all court game , even in 2020 and yes, you STILL CAN !!!! , The sad reality is , if you are a parent of a 12 year old future prodigy baseliner, and Nike or Adidas comes to you with a 20 million dollar offer, are you gonna tweak your child’s game ? No Coincidence that Sampras & Federer wound up with the careers they did , with the game style they employed
@@spirg It is a shame that there's no longer a place for an Edberg anymore. The new equipment makes it far too easy to pass. Pure serve/volley is dead except on grass.
@@swalterstennis I was actually a volleyball coach at USF, just a tennis dilettante who always wanted to hit with anyone better than me. I did have occasion to play on Saddlebrook's Har Tru a few times.
I agree for the most part. Solid offensive ground stroke technique on both sides and aggressive returns have made it difficult to serve and volley except off the best of serves. And coaches and academies are guilty of overtraining endless, mindless groundstrokes and spending less and less time on serves and net approach tactics. I’m guilty of it myself.
its amazing how long courier waits to stick his racquet out for his groundstrokes. the ball is almost to him and he hasn't pulled the racquet back yet!
chang was outgunned in most matches... i believe he would’ve won at least 1 or 2 more GS if they were best of 3 sets.. he expends much energy in his matches... when he gets into the 2 nd week his legs are gone..
That's ridiculous. SOME matches indeed boiled down to that, others did not, and many were far more complicated. They're an even 12-12 head to head. RU-vid: where people who had no idea what they're talking about share their ignorance with others!
Chang absolutely sucks at net. His approach shots never make his opponent run. Its right to them they could take a cigarette break and still get to it. He volleys back to them. And he never covers the easiest passing shot the down the line passing shot. For advanced players the DTL passing shot requires less speed to get to and hit.
@Robert Hurley Jr I agree -- but, the thing was, Chang had to go well outside his comfort zone to keep up with the increasing competition on Tour in the mid/late 90s (Courier, another hard worker, arguably couldn't improve enough of his core game, and so, entered his "death knell" years from 1997-onwards).
I liked watching Michael Chang play. However, I do believe he is overrated. His stats were not great. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chang#Singles_performance_timeline
